Debt, Commitments and Contingencies

The debt, commitments and contingencies described below would require us, or our subsidiaries, to make payments to third parties under certain circumstances.

Debt

On October 6, 2017, we entered into a $125.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility, or the 2017 Facility, with SVB, as administrative agent, PNC Bank, National Association, as documentation agent, and a syndicate of lenders. Upon entry into the 2017 Facility, we borrowed $72.0 million, which was used to repay the previously outstanding balance under our previous credit facility. The 2017 Facility matures in October 2022 and includes an option to further increase the borrowing capacity to $175.0 million with the consent of the lenders. Costs incurred in connection with the 2017 Facility were capitalized and are being amortized as interest expense over the term of the 2017 Facility. The 2017 Facility is secured by substantially all of our assets, including our intellectual property. During the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, we repaid $4.0 million and $1.0 million of the outstanding balance of the 2017 Facility.

The outstanding principal balance on the 2017 Facility accrues interest at a rate equal to, at our option, either (1) LIBOR, plus an applicable margin based on our consolidated leverage ratio, or (2) the highest of (a) the Wall Street Journal prime rate, (b) the Federal Funds rate plus 0.50%, or (c) LIBOR plus 1.00% plus an applicable margin based on our consolidated leverage ratio. For the year ended December 31, 2018, we elected for the outstanding principal balance to accrue interest at LIBOR plus 1.50%, LIBOR plus 1.75%, LIBOR plus 2.00%, and LIBOR plus 2.50% when our consolidated leverage ratio is less than 1.00:1.00, greater than or equal to 1.00:1.00 but less than 2.00:1.00, greater than or equal to 2.00:1.00 but less than 3.00:1.00 and greater than or equal to 3.00:1.00, respectively. The 2017 Facility also carries an unused line commitment fee of 0.20%. For the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, the effective interest rate on the credit facilities was 4.13%, 4.16% and 5.81%.

The carrying value of the 2017 Facility was $67.0 million and $71.0 million as of December 31, 2018 and 2017. The 2017 Facility includes a variable interest rate that approximates market rates and, as such, we classified the liability as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy and determined that the carrying amount of the 2017 Facility approximated its fair value as of December 31, 2018 and 2017. The 2017 Facility contains various financial and other covenants that require us to maintain a maximum consolidated leverage ratio not to exceed 3.50:1.00 and a consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio of at least 1.25:1.00. As of December 31, 2018, we were in compliance with all financial and non-financial covenants and there were no events of default.

On November 30, 2018, we amended the 2017 Facility to incorporate the parameters that must be met for us to repurchase our outstanding common stock under the stock repurchase program authorized by our board of directors on November 29, 2018 (see Note 12).

Commitments and Contingencies

Repurchase of Subsidiary Units

In 2011, we formed a subsidiary that offers to professional residential property management and vacation rental management companies technology solutions for remote monitoring and control of properties, including access control and energy management. Since its formation, we granted an award of subsidiary stock to the founder and president. The vesting of the award is based upon the subsidiary meeting certain minimum financial targets from the date of commercial availability, which was determined to be June 1, 2013, until the fourth anniversary. In 2016, we amended the term of the award, extending the valuation date for the first payment in cash to December 31, 2017, amending the financial targets and allowing for payments in cash based on the future collection of financed customer receivables from 2018 to 2020 that existed as of the valuation date. During 2018, we settled $2.8 million of the liability related to the subsidiary unit awards. We recorded a liability of $0.2 million in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities and $0.2 million in other liabilities related to this commitment in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2018. We recorded a liability of $2.8 million in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities and a liability of $0.4 million in other liabilities related to this commitment in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2017.

At each reporting date until the respective payment dates, we will remeasure these liabilities, and we will record any changes in fair value in general and administrative expense (see Note 9).

Leases

We lease office space and office equipment under non-cancelable operating leases with various expiration dates through 2026. We recognize rent expense for lease payments on a straight-line basis over the expected lease term and amortize tenant improvement allowances over the term of the lease. In August 2014, we signed a lease for new office space in Tysons, Virginia, where we relocated our headquarters in February 2016. The lease term ends in 2026 and includes a five-year renewal option, an $8.0 million tenant improvement allowance and scheduled rent increases. During 2016, we entered into amendments to this lease which provided for 30,662 square feet of additional office space and an additional $1.7 million in tenant improvement allowance. We took possession of the additional space in February 2017 and we were allowed to utilize the tenant improvement allowance for design prior to moving into the space. In October 2018, we entered into another amendment to the lease for our corporate headquarters, which provides for 23,493 square feet of additional office space and an additional $1.1 million in tenant improvement allowance. We took possession of the additional space in November 2018 and have not utilized the tenant improvement allowance for the additional space. As of December 31, 2018, $9.7 million of the total $10.8 million tenant improvement allowance was utilized.

Rent expense was $6.3 million, $6.2 million and $4.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

The following table presents the future minimum lease payments under the non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2018 (in thousands):



Year Ended December 31,	Minimum Lease Payments
2019	$	7,044
2020	7,168
2021	6,974
2022	6,719
2023	6,348
2024 and thereafter	14,838
Total	$	49,091

Indemnification Agreements

We have various agreements that may obligate us to indemnify the other party to the agreement with respect to certain matters. Generally, these indemnification provisions are included in contracts arising in the normal course of business. Although we cannot predict the maximum potential amount of future payments that may become due under these indemnification agreements, we do not believe any potential liability that might arise from such indemnity provisions is probable or material.

Letters of Credit

As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, we had no outstanding letters of credit under the 2017 Facility.

Legal Proceedings

In September 2014, Icontrol Networks, Inc., or Icontrol, filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, asserting that SecureNet Technologies, LLC, or SecureNet, infringes certain U.S. Patents owned by Icontrol, patents now owned by Alarm.com through a subsidiary. In March 2015, Icontrol voluntarily agreed to dismiss the case, reserving the right to refile. In September 2015, Icontrol refiled the case against SecureNet in the same district court alleging infringement of some of the same patents. In March 2017, Alarm.com acquired certain assets and intellectual property from Icontrol, including the patents in suit and the ongoing patent infringement lawsuit. The Court conducted a jury trial in February 2019, which resulted in a finding that upheld the validity of the patent claims in one of the patents at issue, but that SecureNet did not infringe certain claims of the three Icontrol patents in suit. Any appeal of the verdict will be due 30 days after the Court enters a final judgment.

On August 24, 2017, Alarm.com Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary ICN Acquisition, LLC, filed a patent infringement complaint against ipDatatel, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The parties subsequently stipulated to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to stop the further sale of the infringing ipDatatel’s products and systems, and damages for the infringement of Alarm.com’s patents. The complaint asserts that the technology in the ipDatatel products infringe one or more claims of Alarm.com’s patents: United States Patent Numbers 7,113,090; 7,633,385; 7,956,736; 8,478,871; and 9,141,276. If the litigation is successful, Alarm.com will be entitled to receive monetary damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief, including attorneys' fees, from ipDatatel. The Court has scheduled commencement of trial in August 2019. ipDatatel's motion for dismissal based on alleged patent ineligibility as to each patent in suit was denied without prejudice but ipDatatel renewed the motion. On July 26, 2018, ipDatatel answered the complaint by denying the patent infringement allegations and asserting several affirmative defenses, including invalidity and unenforceability. ipDatatel also asserted antitrust counterclaims based on alleged inequitable conduct in connection with the prosecution of one or more patents-in-suit. In September 2018, ipDataTel filed petitions for inter partes review of four of the patents-in-suit before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB. On October 19, 2018, the Court issued a claim construction which, among other things, determined that certain claim terms of two of the patents-in-suit were indefinite. Fact discovery is ongoing and opening expert reports are due in March 2019.

On April 25, 2017, Alarm.com Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary ICN Acquisition, LLC, filed a patent infringement complaint against Protect America, Inc., or Protect America, and SecureNet Technologies, LLC, or SecureNet, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to stop the further sale of the infringing Protect America and SecureNet products and systems, and damages for the infringement of Alarm.com’s patents. The complaint asserts that the technology in the Protect America and SecureNet Alarm Systems products infringe one or more claims of Alarm.com’s patents: United States Patent Numbers 7,113,090; 7,633,385; 8,395,494; 8,493,202; 8,612,591; 8,860,804; and 9,141,276. If the litigation is successful, Alarm.com will be entitled to receive monetary damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief, including attorneys' fees, from Protect America and SecureNet. In June 2017, Alarm.com filed an amended complaint against Protect America only and voluntarily dismissed SecureNet from the suit, reserving the right to refile. In September 2017, Alarm.com voluntarily dismissed the amended complaint in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia and refiled a complaint against Protect America, with substantially the same allegations, in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Texas. The parties subsequently stipulated to transfer the case to the Western District of Texas. The Court has scheduled a claim construction hearing for May 2019, but has not yet scheduled a jury trial.

On June 2, 2015, Vivint, Inc., or Vivint, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court, District of Utah, alleging that our technology directly and indirectly infringes six patents that Vivint purchased. Vivint is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. We answered the complaint on July 23, 2015. Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question. On August 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court, District of Utah stayed the litigation pending inter partes review by the PTAB of five of the patents in suit. In March 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to two patents finding all challenged claims unpatentable. In May 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to the remaining three patents that found certain claims unpatentable, while certain other claims were not found to be unpatentable. Vivint appealed the decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the Federal Circuit, and we cross-appealed. In July 2018, the Federal Circuit issued orders affirming the PTAB’s March 2017 decisions that invalidated all challenged claims of two patents. The U.S. District Court, District of Utah lifted the stay on the litigation on June 26, 2017, with Vivint proceeding with its case on four of the six patents in its complaint. No trial date has been set. In September 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, ordered ex parte reexaminations of certain claims of two of the remaining patents in suit, at our request. On October 30, 2018 and November 5, 2018, the PTO issued final office actions in the pending reexaminations rejecting all claims being examined as unpatentable over the prior art. On December 7, 2018, the U.S. District Court, District of Utah ordered that (i) litigation regarding the nine claims (from two patents) rejected by the PTO during the reexaminations be stayed until May 15, 2019 and (ii) a hearing on the parties’ cross motions for claim construction and Alarm.com’s motions for partial summary judgment as to invalidity and infringement be set for April 3, 2019. On December 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued an order regarding the inter partes review of three of the remaining patents in suit that vacated, reversed and remanded the PTAB’s ruling with regard to the construction of a term (“communication device identification code”) as requested by Alarm.com and affirmed the PTAB’s May 2017 rulings invalidating certain of the Vivint patents in all other respects.

Should Vivint prevail in proving Alarm.com infringes one or more of its patent claims, we could be required to pay damages of Vivint’s lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty for sales of our solution, enjoined from making, using and selling our solution if a license or other right to continue selling such elements is not made available to us or we are unable to design around such patents, and required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us. The outcome of the legal claim and proceeding against us cannot be predicted with certainty. We believe we have valid defenses to Vivint’s claims. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

On December 30, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, or the Court, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does not allege that Alarm.com itself violated the TCPA, but instead seeks to hold us responsible for the marketing activities of one of our service providers as well as calls made by one of this service provider’s sub-dealer agents under principles of agency and vicarious liability. On August 30, 2018, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the case for total cash consideration of $28.0 million. On October 25, 2018, we entered into a definitive settlement agreement, or Settlement Agreement, and submitted it to the Court for approval. In entering into the definitive settlement agreement, we are making no admission of liability.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) we agreed to pay total cash consideration of $28.0 million into a settlement fund, (2) we agreed to implement certain business practice changes to increase awareness of TCPA compliance, (3) each party to the Settlement Agreement agreed to a mutual release of claims relating to any claim or potential claim relating to the marketing activities described in the complaint, and (4) each party covenanted not to sue the other with regard to the released claims. In addition, we have agreed to no longer allow the service provider identified in the litigation as purportedly violating the TCPA to continue activating new accounts for Alarm.com products and services after preliminary Court approval of the Settlement Agreement.

On December 19, 2018, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and certified the class for settlement purposes. The Preliminary Approval Order provides that the administrator must commence the notice process no later than February 18, 2019. Class members will have sixty days from the commencement of notice to file claims, opt out of the settlement or object to the settlement. The Final Approval Hearing is currently scheduled for August 13, 2019.

We made an initial payment of $5.0 million to the settlement administrator on January 2, 2019, and the remaining payment will take place ten business days after the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, which is five business days following the later of the following events: (1) the date upon which the time expires for filing a notice of appeal of the Court’s Final Approval Order and Judgment; or (2) if there is an appeal or appeals of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, and the appellate court enters an order either dismissing the appeal(s) or affirming the Final Approval Order and Judgment without material modification, the date upon which the time expires for seeking review of that order. The release of claims includes all alleged damages incurred related to the lawsuit. Any attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court and all costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the settlement fund.

The $28.0 million settlement is reflected in general and administrative expenses within our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2018. The unpaid amount of the settlement is reflected as an accrued expense in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities within our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2018.

On August 14, 2017, Alarm.com filed a lawsuit against ABS Capital Partners, Inc., ABS Partners V, LLC, ABS Partners VII, LLC, and Ralph Terkowitz in the Delaware Court of Chancery, or the Chancery Court. On September 22, 2017, Alarm.com filed an amended complaint against ABS Capital Partners, Inc., ABS Partners V, LLC, and ABS Partners VII, LLC, alleging claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and misappropriation of confidential information. The amended complaint seeks damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from using Alarm.com’s trade secrets and confidential information to compete with Alarm.com. On October 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On June 15, 2018, the Chancery Court dismissed our complaint. On July 13, 2018, Alarm.com filed a Notice of Appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On August 30, 2018, Alarm.com filed its Opening Brief in the Delaware Supreme Court. The defendants filed a response on October 1, 2018, and Alarm.com filed a reply on October 16, 2018. On February 6, 2019, the Supreme Court of Delaware heard oral argument on the appeal, and on February 7, 2019, the Supreme Court of Delaware summarily affirmed the Chancery Court’s dismissal of our complaint.

On March 29, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us by Nick Fisher in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the TCPA, and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, or TCFAPA. The complaint alleged that Alarm.com and another defendant, Nortek Security & Control LLC, violated the TCPA and TCFAPA through purportedly unauthorized telephone calls to Fisher, and sought to hold us responsible for the alleged calls, including under principles of agency and vicarious liability. The complaint sought monetary damages under the TCPA and TCFAPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorneys' fees. We answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 18, 2018. On November 1, 2018, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice as to plaintiff’s claims alleging vicarious liability for violations of the TCPA, and with prejudice as to plaintiff’s remaining claims.

In addition to the matters described above, we may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business, and we may be required to provide indemnification to certain of our service provider partners for certain claims regarding our solutions. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we currently believe that the final outcome of these ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business.

Other than the preceding matters, we are not a party to any lawsuit or proceeding that, in the opinion of management, is reasonably possible or probable of having a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We reserve for contingent liabilities based on ASC 450, "Contingencies," when it is determined that a liability, inclusive of defense costs, is probable and reasonably estimable. Litigation is subject to many factors that are difficult to predict, so there can be no assurance that, in the event of a material unfavorable result in one or more claims, we will not incur material costs.